Wrist SP Biotech LLC v. Garmin Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wrist SP Biotech, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Garmin International, Inc. (Kansas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00628, W.D. Tex., 08/25/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including a specific retail location in Austin, and commits acts of infringement by advertising and selling products within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartwatches with pulse oximetry features infringe a patent related to a wrist-worn biotelemetry system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable health monitoring devices, specifically wrist-based pulse oximeters capable of non-invasively measuring blood oxygen saturation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,392,970 - Biotelemetry system

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,392,970, “Biotelemetry system,” issued July 19, 2016. (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses limitations of prior art biotelemetry systems, which were often tethered to large monitors or, if wearable, relied on insecure fingertip clips. Even early wrist-worn devices still tethered a sensor to the finger, which limited functionality and long-term use. (’970 Patent, col. 1:22-31, 52-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained biotelemetry system, such as a pulse oximeter, designed to be worn on the wrist. It comprises a banding mechanism that houses one or more disposable sensor modules in a pocket, with a window allowing the sensors to contact the wrist skin directly. This design aims to be portable, untethered, and disposable, improving on the "point of care" utility for both chronic and emergency medical monitoring. (’970 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-38, 51-54; FIG. 3B).
• Technical Importance: The technology sought to improve the comfort, security, and utility of continuous biometric monitoring by relocating the sensor from the fingertip to the wrist and integrating it into a single, untethered wearable device. (’970 Patent, col. 1:59-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "at least claim 1" of the ’970 Patent. (Compl. ¶18).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • (a) two or more disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules, each with a light source, a photodetector, and a substrate.
  • (b) a banding mechanism configured to be worn around the wrist, which has a skin-contacting surface and an integral pocket to receive the sensor modules.
  • (c) a strut enveloped lengthwise within the banding mechanism, which is configured to cause the band to coil around the wrist when bending pressure is applied.
  • (d) a window area on the banding mechanism’s skin-contacting surface, integrated with the pocket, to allow light to pass to and from the sensor.
  • (e) a signal processing unit that receives signals from the photodetector to determine the percentage of hemoglobin molecules bound with oxygen.
• The complaint reserves the right to amend its contentions and assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Garmin's Smartwatches including the Fenix 6X." (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are smartwatches and directs to a Garmin website describing the company's "Pulse Ox" technology for measuring blood oxygen saturation. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint itself provides no further technical detail on how the accused products operate. It makes no specific allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of the accused products beyond their general availability in the United States. (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent. (Compl. ¶18). It states that a claim chart providing a detailed element-by-element breakdown of the infringement allegations is attached as "Exhibit B." (Compl. ¶24). However, Exhibit B was not provided with the filed complaint. The complaint's narrative infringement theory is limited to the conclusory statement that the defendant's acts of making, using, and selling the Accused Products meet all the limitations of at least one claim. (Compl. ¶18). Without the referenced exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "strut enveloped lengthwise within said banding mechanism"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1(c) requires a "strut" that causes the banding mechanism to coil. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused smartwatches likely use conventional flexible bands (e.g., silicone) rather than a mechanism with a distinct, coiling "strut." The case may turn on whether a standard watch band can be found to meet this specific structural limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of potential broader interpretations.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the strut to be configured such that "providing a bending pressure...results in the coiling of the strut and ligature of the banding mechanism around the wrist." (’970 Patent, col. 11:61-67). This suggests a specific mechanical action akin to a "snap bracelet," rather than the simple flexibility of a standard watch band. The specification further describes the banding mechanism as a "pocketed strut" that is "enveloped in a plastic pocket," implying a distinct component. (’970 Patent, col. 11:5-8).

• The Term: "integral pocket configured to receive said two or more disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1(b) requires an "integral pocket" for "disposable" sensor modules. This term is critical because the accused smartwatches likely feature a sensor array permanently integrated into the main watch body, not a pocket for receiving disposable components. The infringement analysis will question whether this integrated, non-replaceable design meets the "pocket" and "disposable" requirements.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that a pocket "may be attached to the banding mechanism in any position along it," which could be argued to support a more flexible definition of its form. (’970 Patent, col. 7:2-4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "pocket configured to receive" strongly implies a structure designed to accept a separate component. The patent explicitly illustrates this concept in Figure 2C, which shows the banding mechanism separate from the sensor to "illustrate the presence of a window or pocket used to house the sensor." (’970 Patent, col. 2:15-18). The requirement that the modules be "disposable" further supports an interpretation of separability and replaceability. (’970 Patent, col. 11:26).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant knowingly induces its customers to infringe and supplies a material part of the invention (the smartwatch technology) that is not a staple article of commerce. (Compl. ¶19). These allegations are not supported by specific factual assertions, such as references to user manuals or advertising.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendant "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the claims of the '970 Patent were invalid" and made "no attempt to design around the claims." (Compl. ¶20-21). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused smartwatch's integrated sensor array and conventional flexible watchband embody the patent's specific claimed architecture of a "strut" that actively causes coiling and a distinct "integral pocket" designed to receive separate, "disposable" sensor modules?
• A key question of definitional scope will be whether Garmin's single, integrated, and non-replaceable sensor package can be construed as meeting the claim requirement for "two or more disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules."
• An immediate evidentiary question will be what specific proof Plaintiff offers to map the claim elements onto the accused products, particularly given the high-level allegations in the complaint and the absence of the referenced claim chart exhibit.